The Qualities of a Divinely Inclined Person.....

[Alexis Jacobi]

Now, there is a strange verb that we might throw in here: to adjure, as in 'To command or enjoin solemnly, as under oath', and if one were to ask me I would say that Revelation, defined as 'revealing or disclosing; something revealed or disclosed, especially a striking disclosure, as of something not before realized', it seems to me that revelation follows adjuration, that is to say the one follows the other as like unto an echo. AND SO IT SEEMS to me that revelation, which by its very nature is the revelation of unknown material, follows upon an Act, or perhaps Stance is the word, and this means a sober, heartfelt, prayer-like petition from the jiva out into the phenomenal world, which shall always represent the mystery, the unutterably strange, the impossible of definition, because that is truly what it is, and so with this (I feel) we come into a space, a glade, a place, a means, by which we can understand Divine or Mystical Utterance; the 'adjuration' that is rehearsed or recited before the Magnificent Unknowable Presence that God is said to be (which might also be a mirror view extending back into our own selves), and the invocative power of the Poet. BUT ONLY ONE WHO is oriented correctly within himself could ever Utter the Adjuration in a truly powerful way (though we all adjure rather weakly every day, and with every breath), and bring forth words forth with Thunderous Power, so that our adjurations, in whatever form they take, but especially when they thunder from us with sincere force and something true and meaningful in us is glowing---expressing---only then do our Words have power to move *something* in the creation that I suppose we will never understand, but yet has been sensed and likely will be sensed now and for all time by all incarnate souls. I have the sense that a New Gnosticism is Praxis derived from certain mystical pools of knowledge that make declarative statements about The Nature of the Reality in which We Are Occurring; the Nature of our Human Awareness; the Nature and Power of the Word and our own Adjurations. But it is 'New' insofar as it is comfortable or at home with Modernity and everything (perspective?) that Modernity offers. It is not beholden to any Old Theatre or Graveyard of Meaning but has Revivified the Old within the structures of the New.

[Pam Seeback]

The stopped mind is of the infinite God, but is not the infinite God; the infinite God is that which flows through the stopped [finite] mind.

One is aware that it is truly the infinite God flowing through the stopped mind, as the words spoken are equal from every direction, A = A, and these words of equal form manifest always the perfect equality of the infinite. In other words, the man who is a vessel for the infinite names out of necessity [he is yet in his body], but gives no mortal, unequal life to these names through the use of human [conditioned] adjectives and adverbs.

[Pam Seeback]

Which means, that the man of the infinite, of the Father God of A = A, of wholeness, is freed of his human conditioning, and is no longer effected or affected by the human conditioning of others, regardless of its direction toward positivism or negativism.

The Truth will set you free.

[Alexis Jacobi]

And it was, more or less, a commentary on what you, Trevor, had written: "I'm not sure that awareness of the bewitching, subtly Holy, power of words shows fear, but rather is a call for caution. Wizardry, like science, is strict and solemn. It is almost tangential to the point that this strictness, when properly directed, is the most effective way of controlling nature. Even if something happened to work better, it is human to be drawn to the rituals. These rituals always contain the verbal pomp of spellcasting. Religion is the perfect example of this spellcraft without the luck of science: spellcasters hiding behind doors (sometimes in ivory towers, but just as often in caves), trying to control nature with a language game that, it just so happens, doesn't work at all! To many, there's very little difference between a science textbook, the Bible, and a grimoire."

AND I COMMENTED THUSLY: In this sense, our 'incarnation' into this flesh-world, a biological world, is entering a Virtual Reality that appears absolutely real, and which we almost have no choice but to take 'absolutely seriously', but when examined conceptually from outside, is not quite as real as we think. In respect to that idea, it becomes possible to harken back to a previous epistemological model, like the Vedic model, which is less lyrical and imaginary than it seems: it actually represents a sort of biopsychological proto-science---a complete existential system with which to confront the circumstances that pertain to our specific location in this particular order of reality.

The imagination becomes relevant here, not in the sense of dreaming up crazy schemes, but in entertaining notions of the (ultimate) nature of Reality, and when we have other models, other 'epistemes', at our conceptual disposal, we can 'handle' the one we are in with more fluidity. As a response: not to get wrapped up in psycho-babble new-age guru-speak---that are just fashions in pseudo-spirituality---but to penetrate some part of 'the mystery of this existence' and what this means for each incarnated being. I would suggest here that each incarnated being (you and me) has come into this 'space' and is in this 'space' under the constraint, if you will, of 'previous agreements'. You perhaps 'saw' on some level of vision beforehand what you were getting into? You 'agreed' to it? You made the descent?

What if it turns out that this whole Reality where we are is, in fact, a giant construct, and is one of an infinite number of Constructs, both of a super-heavy materialistic nature (dense matter, harsher existential realities, 'negativity') and lighter, less dense, 'luminous' worlds that are symbolized by the Heavenly Reality or the 'higher planets'? Down in the sense planets, the predatorial planets, those violent planets where all that really matters is 'trapping', devouring, consuming, and all that we might consider higher, beautiful, ideal, simply cannot even be perceived as having value. These are 'psychobiological worlds of woe'. And what if there 'exists' (since we are conceptually engaged with the notion that, in fact, the 'existence' of anything is a virtual existence) other, distinct 'worlds' as I suggest of a higher, more luminous and more harmonious nature?

[jupiviv]

OK here's a poem I just composed, inspired by Alexis' outpourings:

A man I saw in the woods tonight,
Who was skipping about with great delight.
I ventured to ask him, near him going:
"Where doth lie your home and calling?"
Thoughtful, he answered he had none,
Except all that lies beneath the sun.

[Alexis Jacobi]

In the last days of the fourth world I wished to make a map for
those who would climb through the hole in the sky.

My only tools were the desires of humans as they emerged from
the killing fields, from the bedrooms and the kitchens.

For the soul is a wanderer with many hands and feet.

The map must be of sand and can't be read by ordinary light. It
must carry fire to the next tribal town, for renewal of spirit.

In the legend are instructions on the language of the land, how it
was we forgot to acknowledge the gift, as if we were not in it or of it.

Take note of the proliferation of supermarkets and malls, the
altars of money. They best describe the detour from grace.

Keep track of the errors of our forgetfulness; the fog steals our
children while we sleep.

Flowers of rage spring up in the depression. Monsters are born
there of nuclear anger.

Trees of ashes wave goodbye and goodbye and the map appears
to disappear.

We no longer know the names of the birds here, how to speak to
them by their personal names.

Once we knew everything in this lush promise.

What I am telling you is real and is printed in a warning on the
map. Our forgetfulness stalks us, walks the earth behind us,
leaving a trail of paper diapers, needles, and wasted blood.

An imperfect map will have to do, little one.

The place of entry is the sea of your mother's blood, your
father's small death as he longs to know himself in another.

There is no exit.

The map can be interpreted through the wall of the intestine---a
spiral on the road of knowledge.

You will travel through the membrane of death, smell cooking
from the encampment where our relatives make a feast of
fresh deer meat and corn soup, in the Milky Way.

They have never left us; we abandoned them for science.

And when you take your next breath as we enter the fifth world
there will be no X, no guidebook with words you can carry.

You will have to navigate by your mother's voice, renew the song she is singing.

Fresh courage glimmers from the planets.

And lights the maps printed with the blood of history, a map you
will have to know by your intention, by the language of suns.

When you emerge note the tracks of the monster slayers where
they entered the cities of artificial light and killed what was
killing us.

You will see red cliffs. They are the heart, contain the ladder.

A white deer will greet you when the last human climbs from the
destruction.

Remember the hole of shame marking the act of abandoning
our tribal grounds.

We are never perfect.

Yet, the journey we make together is perfect on the earth who
was once a star and made the same mistake as humans.

We might make them again, she said.

Crucial to finding the way is this: there is no beginning and no end.

You must make your own map.

[Alexis Jacobi]

THE Genius Forum POETRY AWARDS!

To come down to the world of the dead and recite poetry was all I thought to do. How wonderful, really really special it is that some have begun to WRITE their own poems on the insides of those hellish caverns! Remember: to write good poems you must sincerely wish upon the Angelic Star, and adjure angelic descent!

First prize: Trevor. For using idea with form. For encapsulating a clever metaphysic. For lyrical depth and strong philosophical content. For remaining 'light', which is perhaps like this.
Second prize: L'il Jupi. For Ironical Response. For the tie-back to Ecclesiastes. My only critique is that, instead of 'thoughtful', 'ebulliant' or something like it might have augmented the core irony. You do not want to portray what you ironize as 'thoughtful', unless, for example, 'he sat back on his thoughtful haunches and gushed forth' (et cetera).
Third prize: David. Typically clunky (David will make no effort to even consider what Art is, could be, even as it pertains to his World-Mission among the Benighted). Deformed, mishapen, dull. [sad face inserted here].

[jupiviv]

I'm glad I didn't get the first prize. :-)

[Alexis Jacobi]

• A man I saw in the woods tonight,
  Was skipping about in great delight.
  I ventured to ask him, near him going:
  "Where doth lie your home and calling?"
  Gushing forth, he replied he had none,
  Except all that lies beneath the sun.

I modified it just a hair.

[Dennis Mahar]

Typically clunky (David will make no effort to even consider what Art is, could be, even as it pertains to his World-Mission among the Benighted). Deformed, mishapen, dull. [sad face inserted here].

All that discloses Alex is a 'where your atness' of you.
A story you come from about David, that shows up like a persistent complaint.
If you come at the man as an 'empty of story, relational space' and actually make conscious contact (the only contact that constitutes Fine Art) you will discover in David a warmth of being, a love of being that presently escapes you.
It takes true nature realisation to be 'present without story'. It takes discovery of the truth of you...You are the truth...You.
No map cuts it, no quotes cut it.
You are the truth.

How can David enrol in your inauthentic way of being?

You have fallen into a 'winning formula' that equates with a performing seal at Waterworld, doing tricks...clap, clap, clap...
In order to get more fish.

It's too shitty.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

BUT ONLY ONE WHO is oriented correctly within himself could ever Utter the Adjuration in a truly powerful way (though we all adjure rather weakly every day, and with every breath), and bring forth words forth with Thunderous Power, so that our adjurations, in whatever form they take, but especially when they thunder from us with sincere force and something true and meaningful in us is glowing---expressing---only then do our Words have power to move *something* in the creation that I suppose we will never understand, but yet has been sensed and likely will be sensed now and for all time by all incarnate souls.

I think that comprehension of that "something" would be the only way to leave the magical (and hence religious and scientific, and possibly even philosophical) modes of thought; it would genuinely take one to a higher plane. Genius is too weak a word. But since we're dealing with reality, I suspect irony will screw up everything. Isn't "comprehension" itself part of the magical project؟

Adjuration, a summoning, and the consequent revelation, embraces magic in its totality, which I suppose is at least honest. And being honest, it allows for Focused thought: it gives the magician some artifice (a Foci) to help shape his power, to have it grow in a specific direction. Being honest, the Foci helps him cast the "correct" spell.

Thusly, I've got cynicism toward the mystery as well. It doesn't even matter if we can pick the lock of the cage, because the cage functions like a Moebius strip, with the inside identical to the outside.

This is one of the reasons why the study of primitive magic has been an interest: magic being the belief that we have the power to control the Reality that surrounds us.

What interests me is pre-magical and post-magical thinking. I don't think the first can be comprehended [again, comprehension is magical] by consciousness, since magic arises simultaneously with thought. I'd bet that the very first thought is a belief in one's own omnipotence, and the the second one is the complete and utter rejection of this view. It re-emerges only in madness. (And, with the slightest alteration, in theism. Which, I agree, does lead one to naturally wonder at what people are actually saying about their psyche when they talk about God.)

NOW, WHAT I ALSO WONDER is if it will happen, in the course of history for earth-peoples, that we will one day recognize that even if it is all done through rational manipulation of matter through advanced knowledge, still the field in which we operate, that is exist, is all composed of Holy Stuff, which means Sacred Stuff, and that we too occurring within this unfolding material experience also rediscover a Holy Relationship (to All).

And I wonder: what about post-magic? What occurs after the perfection of science, religion, and philosophy? What comes after Isaac Asimov's psychohistorians alter hundreds of years of future history by patting their bellies and rubbing their heads at just the right time, and communication becomes obsolete؟ Golly gee, do we even notice? Or, cynically: our minds in a post-magical world are exactly the same as those of a pre-magical one; that is to say, non-existent, by any definition of "mind".

AND I DO ALSO WONDER sometimes if, somewhere in our Universe, there are not beings (people) who have been down all these roads: that is, of infancy of consciousness, a growing up out of a primitive biological reality (monkey to man), the childish beginnings of manipulation of Reality through Concept and Word, false starts in this that, in the end, may not really have been false starts but Partial Beginnings.

I've associated mind with magic, and thus mind is, too, a Partial Beginning. The burning question: What comes after we've done all we can do with minds?

And what if there 'exists' (since we are conceptually engaged with the notion that, in fact, the 'existence' of anything is a virtual existence) other, distinct 'worlds' as I suggest of a higher, more luminous and more harmonious nature?

Ah, such a positive outlook! Are you or are you not admitting the possibility of angels?

[David Quinn]

Is that your poem?

God's, naturally.

Well in my view Jesus words were of a high poetic quality, at least from the Gospel of Thomas which is the only work I've read containing his words.

Yes, there is some good stuff there. One of my favourite lines:

• "Whoever believes that the All itself is deficient is himself completely deficient." - Thomas: 67

Clunky and dull, perhaps, but straight through the heart!

And another:

• "Whoever has come to understand the world has found only a corpse, and whoever has found a corpse is superior to the world." - Thomas: 56

So timeless! So anti-modern!

-

[cousinbasil]

David, I've noticed that you usually only deign to quote Thomas. You make a point of it, in fact, as if to announce your belief each time that there is something more authentic about this less-well known evangelist, that you are above being taken in by the better-known quartet. This is shallow, blatant elitism - but then again I know how proud you are of being elitist...

[Sphere70]

David "Whoever has come to understand the world has found only a corpse, and whoever has found a corpse is superior to the world."

Yes, I figured you'd like this one ,)

[Pam Seeback]

Trevor: I've associated mind with magic, and thus mind is, too, a Partial Beginning. The burning question: What comes after we've done all we can do with minds?

The mind is magic, which includes the magical interpretation of any kind of a beginning, or an ending, for that matter. What comes after only a man who has been cleansed of his magical mind would know. And, being that he would be without a mind, he would have no means with which to tell "what comes after." This is why the man who is devoted and obedient to be cleansed of his subjective-objective world [his magical world] is a man of faith and humility, in the true and pure [non-religious] sense of the word.

[Alexis Jacobi]

[quote="TREVOR: 'I THINK THAT comprehension of that "something" would be the only way to leave the magical (and hence religious and scientific, and possibly even philosophical) modes of thought; it would genuinely take one to a higher plane. Genius is too weak a word. But since we're dealing with reality, I suspect irony will screw up everything. Isn't "comprehension" itself part of the magical project؟ / Adjuration, a summoning, and the consequent revelation, embraces magic in its totality, which I suppose is at least honest. And being honest, it allows for Focused thought: it gives the magician some artifice (a Foci) to help shape his power, to have it grow in a specific direction. Being honest, the Foci helps him cast the "correct" spell. / Thusly, I've got cynicism toward the mystery as well. It doesn't even matter if we can pick the lock of the cage, because the cage functions like a Moebius strip, with the inside identical to the outside,' "]AND I RESPOND: As to the first point about 'comprehending that *something*, I suppose I agree: if we ever did feel we *understood*, we would (perhaps) not be mystified in realtion to *it*. And even talking about *it* reveals precisely that 'mystical' (mystified) relationship. FOR IT SEEMS TO ME that what *normally* happens is that we/they lose any sense of Wonder about the very fact of existence, that things are existing, that being is, that there is being, awareness: Life. How can being even be is such a deliciously strange question and asking it an odd kind of Electricity of Interrogative seems to be invoked. A sort of ticklish thought that one can't think too long or that leads to an impenetrable wall. And because the people and culture that surrounds us define *normalcy* as showing little or no interest or wonder in the Grand Existential Question(s), it is a little like a sign of madness to begin to ponder deeply. But when we ponder we enter a no-man's zone, or a zone of unknowing, and I suppose we are either *optimistic* in respect to *it* or *paranoid*, isn't this so? For example: the Manichean Heresy (which I suspect is at the base of David's attraction to Thomas): the idea that we have fallen (asleep), that *something* is sending messages down through the layers to wake us up, that the place itself is our ENEMY! ruled by demons! every smiling girl (with the equally implied open smiling legs and hot vagina, which is what it strictly comes down to) with her Gaoler's Honey, and everyone we encounter a robotic emmisary from the Dark Lord of the Place, and everywhere and always the Lullaby: 'Take your rest, weary traveller! The sun shines and beauty abounds. A good sleep with refresh you!', BUT YOU HAVE SEEN THE MATRIX, you know that every act has consequences (red pill/blue pill, doorways, people, all things that appear odd and out-of-place, all *exploring metaphors*), and you note that there are unexplainable RIPPLES in the very Fabric of what you are seeing and in which everyone just carries on as if nothing really strange is going on, and you feel some unexplained need to remain vigilant, responsible, as against the Giant Sleepy Force. [/quote]

And so, in my way of seeing things, we require a New Gnosticism, and such Gnosticism, in fact, does not really believe ANYTHING, any story, any narrative, any 'truth', any Potion sold, any Mission served, and yet allows the fluid of ideas to wash over us, to experience the inner essence, and yet we remain stoic, unconvinced, ironical perhaps؟

[Alexis Jacobi]

With some other changes, and the mysteriously capitalized Lie with its suggested double entendre, we can further extend the Barb and Bite of this devilish, Jupiesque pOeM:

• A man I saw in the woods tonight,
  Was skipping about in great delight.
  I ventured to ask him, near him going:
  "Where doth lie your home and calling?"
  He answered in riddle and said "There is none,
  Except all that Lies beneath the sun".

And for all you LOvELieS: What A Piece of Work is Man. Where do I go?

[jupiviv]

OK, here's another one that I thought up just now:

In the glowing eve,
With a silent heave,
She asked the sky:
"Is it time that's passing by,
Or is it just you and I?"

These are probably the only two poems I've written in my life. Seriously.

I can give expression to more mindless nonsense than any other poet currently living, because I'm far more conscious of mindlessness than any other poet currently living. So I'd probably become a brilliant poet if I put my mind to it!

[Trevor Salyzyn]

I can only rhyme on what I see,
So I look to right in front of me:
It happens to be a glass of tea,
Or, more specifically
An cold-as-ice chai smoothie,
Prepared for this teashop attendee
Both tastefully and carefully
By a particular employee
Whose short pants courageously
Reveal white legs for all to see.
I must end this poem, unfortunately,
Since just arrived by company.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Ah but Jupi: now write a poem about something that actually MATTERS to you (I assume there is something, somewhere in this universe that matters to you? Don't be afraid to say there isn't though). Then the whole enterprise takes on a radically different cast. I suggest you'd give up after about 20 minutes. In other news:

• I discovered today why I'm such a mess
  it's a thing I'll take a moment of your time to address:
  it's all because my parents were hippies,
  half naked youngsters with flowery potpourris,
  and in their music collection was the album 'Hair'
  with which they had a long love affaire
  (and which were the songs I linked to up there).
  so hair, charlie parker, dylan, franklin and redding
  is likely what filled my mind with its bedding
  and for your 'precious time' at this poem to be lookin'
  I'll leave you with a song from the joy of cookin'

[David Quinn]

David, I've noticed that you usually only deign to quote Thomas. You make a point of it, in fact, as if to announce your belief each time that there is something more authentic about this less-well known evangelist, that you are above being taken in by the better-known quartet.

I've quoted the better-known quartet many a time. Indeed, on my website I have compiled quotes from all five gospels: The Horror of Jesus.

This is shallow, blatant elitism - but then again I know how proud you are of being elitist...

It's not so much being proud of being an elitist, but rather disgust at how low others set their sights.

One shouldn't have to apologise for not being content with mediocrity.

-

[David Quinn]

David "Whoever has come to understand the world has found only a corpse, and whoever has found a corpse is superior to the world."

Yes, I figured you'd like this one ,)

Being "superior to the world" includes being superior to all pride, to all thoughts about one's status in regards to other people, to all feelings about one's postion in the human ant colony - these things are also part of the corpse of the world.

Jesus is here pointing to complete transcendence of the world and everything in it. It is superiority in its purest sense. It has nothing to do with relations with other people. Only beta males get hung up on that sort of thing ......

Jesus was often accused of elitism himself. For example:

"I am not possessed by a demon," said Jesus, "but I honour my Father and you dishonour me. I am not seeking glory for myself; but there is one who seeks it, and he is the judge. Very truly I tell you, whoever obeys my word will never see death."

At this they exclaimed, "Now we know that you are demon-possessed! Abraham died and so did the prophets, yet you say that whoever obeys your word will never taste death. Are you greater than our father Abraham? He died, and so did the prophets. Who do you think you are?"

Jesus replied, "If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and obey his word. Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad."

"You are not yet fifty years old," they said to him, "and you have seen Abraham!"

"Very truly I tell you," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"

At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.

- John 8: 49

The stone-throwers were all concerned about their position in the social hierarchy, while Jesus was wholly beyond all that in the purest sense. He was, in every way, superior to them.

-

[Alexis Jacobi]

John is the Gospel that most radically departs from any sense or connection to 'the historical Jesus'. It has virtually no relationship to the other 3 Gospels. It is the document in which the 'christology' is constructed and defined. It is strictly non-Jewish and extra-biblical. According to some, almost none of the dialogue in it can be attributed to Jesus (Yeshua). It is pure 'novel'. It is still a very, very interesting document. Its whole purpose is to guide the reader to examine certain novelistic circumstances in which Jesus and the disciples and the other actors participated. It presents 'signs' to the reader who, give his special and privelaged vantage point, and certain clues given to him, is able to make decisions about, i.e. to interpret the signs and capture the inner meaning. Some scholars believe that the book of John is an expansion of a (now lost) book called literally 'the book of signs'.

The first 'sign' is given right at the beginning and is held in the mind of the reader as he proceeds through the text:

• In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
  
  14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

And every other chapter is a 'sign' presented to the reader who has been given the tools of interpretation he needs in order to clearly 'see' beforehand. For example in this chapter:

• 1 Now Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that he was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John— 2 although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples. 3 So he left Judea and went back once more to Galilee. 4 Now he had to go through Samaria. 5 So he came to a town in Samaria called Sychar, near the plot of ground Jacob had given to his son Joseph. 6 Jacob’s well was there, and Jesus, tired as he was from the journey, sat down by the well. It was about noon.
  
  7 When a Samaritan woman came to draw water, Jesus said to her, “Will you give me a drink?” 8 (His disciples had gone into the town to buy food.)
  
  9 The Samaritan woman said to him, “You are a Jew and I am a Samaritan woman. How can you ask me for a drink?” (For Jews do not associate with Samaritans.[a])
  
  10 Jesus answered her, “If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water.”
  
  11 “Sir,” the woman said, “you have nothing to draw with and the well is deep. Where can you get this living water? 12 Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well and drank from it himself, as did also his sons and his livestock?”
  
  13 Jesus answered, “Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, 14 but whoever drinks the water I give them will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give them will become in them a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”
  
  15 The woman said to him, “Sir, give me this water so that I won’t get thirsty and have to keep coming here to draw water.”
  
  16 He told her, “Go, call your husband and come back.”
  
  17 “I have no husband,” she replied.
  
  Jesus said to her, “You are right when you say you have no husband. 18 The fact is, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband. What you have just said is quite true.”
  
  19 “Sir,” the woman said, “I can see that you are a prophet. 20 Our ancestors worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem.”
  
  21 “Woman,” Jesus replied, “believe me, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. 22 You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23 Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24 God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.”
  
  25 The woman said, “I know that Messiah” (called Christ) “is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us.”
  
  26 Then Jesus declared, “I, the one speaking to you—I am he.”

___________________________________________________________

The Gospel of David is essentially a species of Christology. That is his first and principal influence, despite the fact he is unaware of it. He takes this 'unconscious' material into his reading of Kierkegaard (who was utterly driven by an extremely interiorized and quite fanatical christology) and then percolates it through some Zen texts, through an absolute distain for his Australian cultural background, and has made it into a kind of mission. Literally a 'life-work'.

The stone-throwers were all concerned about their position in the social hierarchy, while Jesus was wholly beyond all that in the purest sense. He was, in every way, superior to them.

Examined again, you will see that this is an invented story (the story in John). The man who wrote it was certainly not there to witness it. He is a novelist and he created this story to make a point. Still, you have appropriated the story and forced it to conform to your own sense of your own mission. The man in the story, now, is David, not Jesus. David is beyond *everyone* in this sense, and David is *superior* (in this sense). There is no one equal to David now on the planet.

• AND DAVID SPOKE UNTO THEM AND HE SAID: "If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and obey his word. Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad."

Trippy, huh?

[David Quinn]

Examined again, you will see that this is an invented story (the story in John). The man who wrote it was certainly not there to witness it. He is a novelist and he created this story to make a point.

You may well be right, but it is irrelevant. There are far greater issues at play than the historical Jesus.

Still, you have appropriated the story and forced it to conform to your own sense of your own mission.

Why not? No one owns it.

You always give the impression of being aggrieved when it comes to this matter, as though something you possess is being stolen.

The man in the story, now, is David, not Jesus. David is beyond *everyone* in this sense, and David is *superior* (in this sense). There is no one equal to David now on the planet.

I consider anyone to be my equal who no longer think in terms of equal, superior or inferior.

-

[Alexis Jacobi]

It is absolutely NOT irrelevant. The point is, you see, that you extract the Jesus you wish him to be and you deny the context. Ah right, I forgot: you don't care about context. Which is also part of my point. Like John and this branch of early Christians who fashioned this Christology, you similarly fashion a unique and VERY tendentious religious praxis. But, you can't do this on your own so you 'borrow back' from other traditions, and seek justification in them for what YOU do (which is radically different than what 'they' recommend). You can do whatever you want of course---you could make Popeye and Brutus to work for you if you really wanted them to, or some sort of enlightenment-take on the Wizard of Oz or even Casablanca or Night of the Living Dead.

But no matter how you chop it, the Jewish-Christian context is one intimately involved with a strict humanitarianism (an incomprehensible and sinful term for you) a focus on human beings and human life. You have utterly and decisively severed away all that is human and you seek to remove man (a man, yourself, your followers) from a human context. I have no other way to describe it except that you want them and yourself to (somehow) disappear from the human plane of existence. I have never seen or heard of anything quite like it except among cults. You seem at times like an Essene but then you also go well beyond them with your disconnectedness. Maybe you are a reincarnated Ctistae? Maybe you're really some sort of extraterrestrial? ;-)